Alan Lloyd, Marsalforn
Making the right choice on divorce
I congratulate The Times for stimulating debate on the vexed question of divorce. It would appear from recent correspondence that both sides of the debate provoke valid argument. It seems that there is, at least, some willingness to submit the matter to public scrutiny.
On the one hand, it can be argued that divorce is an act of compassion, the righting of a wrong, the correction of a mistake, on the other hand it can be proposed that divorce is an act in defiance of God’s holy law.
In so many cases the Christian Church quite rightly accepts human fallibility and happily forgives our sins. It is a compassionate Church.
A bad marriage is most often a mistake, but not necessarily a sin.
Many factors conspire to undermine a consecrated partnership. Modern living places many constraints on our lives. Stress leads to intolerance and unhappiness. There is a breaking point in any partnership. It seems somewhat harsh to accept that the only way out of a bad marriage is death, according to the vows.
Western world morality is generally a product of Judaic/Christian philosophy. Religion should be a dynamic and progressive force, it must move with the times if it is to retain credibility within modern society.
The Roman Catholic Church has formulated its doctrine over almost 2,000 years and many changes have been made during that time, many repressive policies reformed for the betterment of its community.
Surely it is now time for the Church and political state to allow uninhibited public debate on the issue of divorce, perhaps even a referendum. I for one believe that God would trust humankind to make the right decision without fear.
Popular Stories
In Discussion
39 Comments
Post comment
Please sign in or create your Account to post comments.
Joe Zammit
Dec 6th 2010, 10:39
BORG IN-NADUR: 17 ta' Novembru, 2010:
Uliedi, illejla tajtkom prova ċara. Iva wliedi, għalhekk Ibni Ġesù qed jibgħatni hawn, fuq dil-gżira. Għalhekk għażilt dil-familja kważi ħames snin ilu. Għalhekk ridt lil Angelik u lil Catherine. Iva wliedi, Ibni Ġesù ma riedx jara żwieġ imfarrak. Għalhekk ħames snin ilu bagħatni hawnhekk, nerġa’ ngħidilkom. Ġejt inħabbrilkom minn qabel x’se jseħħ fuq dil-gżira. Kien hawn min fehemni u oħrajn lanqas biss taw widen.
Ftit taż-żmien ieħor se jkollkom għażla f’idejkom intom stess. Oqogħdu attenti x’tagħżlu wliedi. Iġġibux il-gwaj fuqkom.
Fejnhom fil-familji l-imħabba, l-għaqda, il-maħfra, is-sinċerità u t-talb flimkien? Fejnhom? Għalhekk illum kulħadd qed ifarfar minn fuq spallejh mal-ewwel intopp li jinqala’.
Iva wliedi, il-qalb tiegħi u l-qalb ta’ Ibni Ġesù muġugħin minħabba fikom. Jiena muġugħa għax jiena omm li nħoss għalikom.
Akkost ta’ kollox uliedi, jiġri x’jiġri, ibqgħu għidu: “LE GHAD-DIVORZJU, LE GHAD-DIVORZJU!"
U għidu r-rużarju u ġiegħlu lil ħaddieħor jgħid ir-rużarju.
Grazzi talli smajtu s-sejħa tiegħi.
david camilleri
Aug 14th 2010, 12:53
the church doesn't have to agree nor re-marry anyone. This is a state issue. A referendum wouldn't be fair since a portion of people would not get what they desire and not have a choice either way.
Why can't the government and the church just let people decide for themselves? Organised religion is a dictatorship, none of its leaders are elected by the followers. And these leader rule with absolute power. Lets not let such backwardness thinking rule over 'democracy'.
Let the people live and think for themselves...
We are not horrible sinners from the time they are born so we shouldn't be treated like that!
Dr Francis Saliba
Aug 13th 2010, 18:54
@Dr Joe Brincat.
You are really naughty. You made my heart miss a beat and I had to read your "dissenting" comment several times before I could reassure myself that the only difference was your emphatic use of upper case to agree with me
Joe Xuereb
Aug 13th 2010, 12:20
To borrow from the 'marriage ritual' the world evolves, 'for better or for worse'. One has to go along with this as there is no choice. Hardline adherence to a golden age (that never was in any case) is a self-imposed death sentence. The Church is adamant in its steadfastness and cannot change as Karl Consiglio rightly says. And as Joe Brincat says, the church has a right/duty to postulate. I don't give it rope. It awards it to itself. While I watch. Sometimes. Because I have a life.
Nothing natural about 'marriage'. It is a civic setup to retain some semblance of social order. Therefore imposed. As such, it needs to be reviewed as, being man-made, it is dissoluble. Nature's aim is to propagate, like blades of grass do. Children need long-term rearing by their very nature. Hence man-made laws. Propagation over, Nature washes its hands. From then on we are on our own. Unless of course one brings god into the equation. That's when it starts to get messy. Because nature doesn't do permanence.
Don't forget, war, current or historic, may be man-made but the reason is often god. Alas, he gets in most everywhere that one.
Dr Francis Saliba
Aug 13th 2010, 18:44
The irreconcilable difference between you and me (and those who think like me) is that we have a much higher opinion of the moral standards to be expected from Homo sapiens when compared with the sex exploits a stray cat. That is the inevitable logical conclusion that can be drawn from your latest comment. It is that opinion that is well and truly "messy" - not the belief in God.
Dr Francis Saliba
Aug 13th 2010, 11:52
@KennethCassar
I never said that divorce laws are the cause of marriage breakdowns. What I maintain is that laws liberalizing divorce would inevitably provoke an accelerated erosion of the traditional stable and indissoluble marriage and its replacement by marriages undertaken lightly and without any strong intention to make them last “for better and for worse”. This has happened all over the secularized world and it is detrimental for society as a whole not only on religious grounds but also on socio-economic on
Dr Francis Saliba
Aug 13th 2010, 11:20
@Dr.JoeBrincat
It is the duty of the State to legislate and control an unsatisfactory de facto situation. That is what Moses did when he permitted a “paper of divorce” because of the “hardness of heart” of the Jews even though natural law “was not so from the very beginning”. That did not imply approving and promoting divorce as an unsatisfactory substitute for an indissoluble marriage. What is happening today is a glorification of cohabitation outside marriage, remuneration for the procreation of children outside marriage (real or simulated), same sex “marriage” and a marriage formula promoting marriage as a simple civil contract easily dissolved by common arrangement between the couple and their lawyers. This goes far beyond enacting laws to control an unsatisfactory de facto situation. It is an actual endorsement and a crude deception. I am making a deliberate distinction between “controlling” a situation and giving that unsatisfactory situation a stamp of approval by regularizing it (as distinct from regulating it).
The Church authorities have the right and the duty to teach that this is “wrong” not “right” and they should not be vilified for doing their duty. You and I agree on that point - not so other commenters.
Dr Joe Brincat
Aug 13th 2010, 13:01
Regarding your last paragraph. I do not agree as written :
I prefer this :
"The Church authorities have the DUTY and the RIGHT to teach that this is “wrong” not “right” and they should not be vilified for doing their duty. "
If a religion does not promote moral values, what religion is it ? Even the Anglican Church does not approve of divorce and does not marry divorced persons in church. Fortunately or unfortunately, a religion has to row against the tide. (There is a warning in the Gospel). If it does not row against the tide, and man has automatic moral values, (as automatic as he breathes) a religion would be then irrelevant.
Dr Francis Saliba
Aug 13th 2010, 09:32
Without realizing it Mr. Joe Xuereb has unwittingly exposed the true agenda of the promoters of divorce laws. This is not as any desirable mitigation of the hardships suffered by spouses and offspring whenever a marriage unfortunately runs into difficulties. The true aim is to destroy the concept of marriage as the durable natural institution practiced by humanity “from the beginning” - much before the later Mosaic and Christian views of marriage. It seeks to substitute this stable institution by an irresponsible siring of children by ever changing co-habiting couples who are only required to “shack up with care” much in the same way as a good stallion is selected to sire a good racehorse!
Joe Xuereb
Aug 13th 2010, 02:43
No one has ever come back from Limbo, never mind hell, to tell us that these places actually exist.
Sure, please claim to hear voices coming from up above, telling them this and that. But these voices are symptomatic of other, more earthly, things.
The best way to deal with divorce is not to get married in the first place. If children are one's reason for getting married, children can be sired even in a co-habitation setup. I know this sounds alien to people like Joe Zammit but its very common nowadays for people to just move and with each other. One needs to be careful who one shacks up with of course. But then one needs to do that even if their aim is marriage.
patrick zammit
Aug 13th 2010, 13:36
Joe
According to a recent declaration by the Church, Limbo no longer exists; it appears God had a rethink.
Karl Consiglio
Aug 12th 2010, 18:49
No I don't expect the church to change its view and law, it can't do that lest it become a joke. However there are marriages that got nothing to do with the church or the concept of a God, these can therefore have divorce.
Dr Francis Saliba
Aug 12th 2010, 18:17
@Alan Lloyd
There is another possibility that should carry great weight with everyone, including those who have no compunction about defying “God’s holy law”. Wherever divorce laws have been introduced, ostensibly as “an act of compassion”, the ideal institution of a durable, stable marriage has been eroded by liaisons entered into irresponsibly on the understanding that the commitment could be easily revoked irrespective of the interests of children and of society in general.
It is a moot point if failed marriages would be preferable to divorces especially in the minds of hedonists and irreligionists. What is certain is that one does not try to solve the problem of rats in an aviary by throwing in a cat and no one would willingly imbibe a medicine that is more harmful than the disease it is meant to cure!
Please note that both Church and State in Malta are actually allowing an “uninhibited debate on the issue of divorce”. The hidden agenda of the pro-divorce lobby is to deny to the Church any participation in that debate and to deny its constitutional right and duty to teach because, according to them, that would be “imposing”.
Joseph Micallef
Aug 13th 2010, 08:42
Don't you realise that what you say re maggiages breaking up after divorces was introduced in other countries, is already happening today, with separations and co-habitations?!
Kenneth Cassar
Aug 13th 2010, 09:12
"...the ideal institution of a durable, stable marriage has been eroded by liaisons entered into irresponsibly on the understanding that the commitment could be easily revoked irrespective of the interests of children and of society in general".
1. First of all, you don't prohibit something just because some people would abuse it, otherwise we would have to do away with knives, cars, tools, medicines...the list is endless.
2. It is not divorce that erodes the ideal institution (ideal is the key word) of marriage. If divorce were the culprit, we would have no failed marriages in Malta.
Dr Joe Brincat
Aug 13th 2010, 09:30
As usual you raise points for reflection and pondering. That can contribute to a fruitful discussion.
(1) The Church has the duty to speak out against divorce, separation and cohabitation, not only on basis of religion. Also for the good of society. I would add that the Church is assuming a compassionate attitude towards the individuals in these circumstances.. The State often has to enact laws to regulate de facto situations, which may not tally with moral law.
(2) Cohabitation (a de facto situation) has become widespread. Pre-marital and post-separation. Even for widowers and widows. A victim in a separation was asked whether she is "lesbian" because she refused partners !!! Yesterday someone told me that his sister-in-law has four children from three "cohabitations". Today rather than a stigma, cohabitation is "fashionable", in all strata of society.
(3) Civil divorce and civil regulation of cohabitation should try to tackle these "civil" problems. First for responsible parenthood. Secondly, for responsibility in unions. (limited space)
(4) Unfortunately young couples prepare for weddings not for marriage. (no more space)
Jason Fenech
Aug 12th 2010, 18:17
If religion was progressive and dynamic - wishful thinking - it would be defunct by now and indeed heaven it would be knowing that people like Mr. Zammit, who mirrors the same exact fundamentalist beliefs of many a policy maker, would never have a say on such matters.
Divorce is not up for debate as far as the church is concerned. Its position is crystal clear.
Robert Callus
Aug 12th 2010, 16:33
"A bad marriage is most often a mistake, but not necessarily a sin."
I fully agree but would like to add something. Let's say it is a sin. Isn't an individual (or couple) responsible for their own sins? To sin is not illegal. The church even says using a condom is a sin. Thankfully it is not a criminal offense. So, a politician can freely be a Catholic and ALLOW divorce. As far as I know there is nothing in the Bible that says a Catholic is responsible not to ALLOW OTHER PEOPLE to sin.
JOSEPH ZAMMIT
Aug 12th 2010, 15:16
This is really a positive argument from Mr. Alan Lloyd. I also thank The Times for stimulating the divorce debate online and the more constructive arguments we have the better, as people become more aware and open up.
However, one always gets one or two correspondents who glorify in narrow-mindedness--many of them do more harm to their religion than they can realize. If one scans his mouse downwards, one would clearly realize what I mean.
Christian Sciberras
Aug 12th 2010, 14:54
Alan, replies like the above Joe's are the exact reason why it shouldn't be left to the public to decide on such matters.
Johnnie Bowdler
Aug 12th 2010, 13:59
So what you're saying if I understand you correctly, Mr Joe Zammit, is that those who are truly sorry and repentful for divorcing their spouses will be forgiven by God and can enter Paradise along with the faithful? Aren't we promised in the Scriptures that those who truly repent of their 'sins' will be forgiven?
A well-reasoned article Mr Lloyd, by the way.
Lina Caruana
Aug 12th 2010, 11:22
May I put in a correction. It is not just the Church who has to disagree with divorce ,in any case it is of consideration only to believers.But no true discussion has been raised to see how has divorce worked in countries who have had it for ages and who are now perusing the situation of broken families. Some do regret that divorce laws ran out of hand as they always do into lax dissolution of marriage and this has prompted several studies to enquire where the fault is. What is certain is that Catholic or not Catholic, broken homes are a priority for social order and governance whether it is social welfare or children in trouble.
l.theuma
Aug 12th 2010, 10:57
A bad marriage, from the catholic point of view is not a marriage at all. It is null. So a decree of annulment must be sought. Its up to the church tribunal to give it without much bureaucrecy.
Anton Portelli
Aug 16th 2010, 10:18
Yes but for that you have to wait about 15 years and pay a fortune!!!!!
Joe Zammit
Aug 12th 2010, 10:34
Marriage is not a sin, but dissolving a validly contracted marriage is always a grave sin. No man has the right or the power to dissolve a validly contracted marriage, especially once it is consummated.
Appealing to God's mercy to introduce divorce is diabolical in its very essence. The 'second chance' proposition is a devilish deceit. Christ commands us never to resort to divorce because "what God has joined together let no man put asunder!"
God will award the good and punish those who choose evil, like divorce, and this punishment will be in hell for ever if they don't repent before.
But, let no one deceive themselves by saying that they can offend God the way they like and then they will find mercy in God. God is infinitely merciful but no one is going to deceive him. The millions of people in hell have deceived only themselves!
M Vella
Aug 12th 2010, 11:20
Very funny Joe heeeeheeeeeee just like a horror book :) :)
Guido Bonett
Aug 12th 2010, 11:41
Fire and Brimstone at it's best. Thank God you are not a preacher. And the 'millions' in hell ???? You seem to know a lot of things we don't !
Paul Borg
Aug 12th 2010, 12:15
@ Joe Zammit..
Please stop this Jihad like contributions......Jesus spoke about love and not condemnation. Instead of wasting your time blogging you should work to help families in difficult situations and emphazise on the importance of the family as the bases of our society......
Life is not about what is sin and what is not sin!!
Patrik Larsson
Aug 12th 2010, 12:50
Such Christian charity, espoused by such a compassionate person.
What about the marriages not put together by "God", all civil marriages? By what right do you incur your pet religion on the spouses of such marriages?
If there is a god - which I strongly doubt - I truly hope he is far from the stubborn, dictatorial misogynist that you portray him as.
Joseph Micallef
Aug 12th 2010, 13:05
Are you sure you mean consummated not consumed? By the way Joe, will you update your idea of the Catholic religion please. Maybe find someone who can help you update yourself? Do you realise that utterances like "God will award the good and punish those who choose evil, like divorce, and this punishment will be in hell for ever if they don't repent before." are not being used anymore by the Catholic Church, that you are using outdated means to try to convey your ideas and that you are giving a wrong idea of God - even I would dare say - giving him a bad name! Should you wish to take the role of preacher or more like it, an online-preacher, then make sure you are well prepared to do so. Your ideas and ways are infantile, to say the least.
victor pulis
Aug 12th 2010, 13:16
And don't forget that God is not asleep!
D Cohen
Aug 12th 2010, 13:51
Joe Zammit - You have some serious issues. Look past the blindfold the catholic church has placed over your eyes and see the reality of how families are being torn apart by not being able to divorce.
Darren Galea
Aug 12th 2010, 14:02
Roman Catholics don't get to define my marriage, or my parents' marriage.
Christian Sciberras
Aug 12th 2010, 14:51
"The 'second chance' proposition is a devilish deceit."
Ironically, you are speaking so from the comfort of your home, without fear of any effects of sins you might have committed in the past. Or are you trying to tell us you've never sinned?
I don't want any answer. Just think about the relation between your post and your answer.
patrick zammit
Aug 12th 2010, 15:05
"The millions of people in hell have deceived only themselves!"
So has God's plan backfired or do I detect a streak of sadism?
B. Cachia
Aug 12th 2010, 19:11
@ Joe Zammit: All that is quite irrelevant really, as no religious issue is at stake here. No one is even discussing catholic marriage. Likewise, no one is encouraging Catholics to sin by actually availing themselves of divorce.
The only thing that the whole debate is about is whether the civil effects of marriage can be dissolved by the state that created them in the first place. An Orthodox person or a Protestant or non-Christian in Malta should have every right not to have the Catholic way of life imposed on them by the State. Catholics too should be allowed to choose of their own free will whether they want to live like Catholics or not.
Olivia Aquilina
Aug 12th 2010, 21:30
Hell, punishment, fire and brimstone ... why don't some people just mind their own business? If you're lucky and your own marriage worked out for you, you should just take a back seat in the whole discussion and not threaten people with hell!!!
Unbelievable!!! Talking like that in this day and age!!!
mjbagley
Aug 13th 2010, 09:03
Seems your place in heaven is assured, whatever that may be.
victor pulis
Aug 13th 2010, 09:16
Millions in hell? shouldn't that be billions Joe with your way of 'thinking'? remember that only catholics, and good ones at that go to heaven. let me remind readers that just one mortal sin, like not attending mass on Sunday may lend you an eternity in hell and eternity is a very long time!